[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
[–] xboxnolifes 1 day ago
This is controlling them.
[–] 10111001 1 day ago
> This is controlling them.
I think it's meant to remove them from that class.
Controlling: telling them what to do, implementing policy through their power.
Eliminating: removing their power until they're not oligarchs.
[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
It's really not. Putin controls his oligarchs. Denmark doesn't have oligarchs. (It does have nobility and billionaires.)
[–] ajuc 1 day ago
And for US it's too late, it already has oligarchs.
[–] JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago
Who is Putin’s peer in Russia? An oligarchy is a small group of peers.
[–] ajuc 13 hours ago
He got choosen by "Semya" (family) organized around Yeltsin in the first place, and over time he replaced most of the top guys with his own friends, and he remains on top, so there's nobody who is exactly "peer". But if enough of them change their minds - Putin loses power (and life) quickly. It's a balancing act - curbing the guys that stick out too much without frustrating enough of them to lose the support overall.
The current #2 is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Kovalchuk but it's hard to say with mafia.
No, you don't. In fact that's exactly the wrong approach because it recognizes them as institutions.
Tax them. Reduce money in politics. Investigate them if they did something wrong.
Note that I'm using the term oligarch precisely. Not just rich people. Rich people holding direct political power. You don't control that without empowering it, you remove the direct political power.